EMIM.L vs. FLQA.L
EMIM.L (iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc)) and FLQA.L (Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - EMIM.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index (IMI), while FLQA.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the Linked FTSE Asia ex Japan ex China Index - Net Return. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMIM.L returned 7.04%/yr vs 12.74%/yr for FLQA.L. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EMIM.L charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for FLQA.L.
Performance
EMIM.L vs. FLQA.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
EMIM.L is traded in GBp, while FLQA.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the FLQA.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMIM.L achieves a 14.67% return, which is significantly lower than FLQA.L's 30.36% return.
EMIM.L
- 1D
- -1.83%
- 1M
- -9.58%
- 6M
- 9.09%
- YTD
- 14.67%
- 1Y
- 28.65%
- 3Y*
- 17.14%
- 5Y*
- 7.04%
- 10Y*
- 8.64%
FLQA.L
- 1D
- -1.70%
- 1M
- -12.65%
- 6M
- 21.93%
- YTD
- 30.36%
- 1Y
- 47.65%
- 3Y*
- 23.13%
- 5Y*
- 12.74%
- 10Y*
- —
EMIM.L vs. FLQA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMIM.L iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) | 14.67% | 23.35% | 9.18% | 4.93% | -10.17% | 0.74% | 14.91% | 12.69% | -4.16% |
FLQA.L Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 30.36% | 20.59% | 9.64% | 6.42% | -2.58% | 5.56% | 3.57% | 5.57% | -3.45% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMIM.L and FLQA.L is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.90 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.84 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.82 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2018 | 0.83 |
The correlation between EMIM.L and FLQA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
EMIM.L vs. FLQA.L — Risk / Return Rank
EMIM.L
FLQA.L
EMIM.L vs. FLQA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (EMIM.L) and Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.L). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| EMIM.L | FLQA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.49 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.55 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.28 | 1.35 | -0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.39 | 3.07 | -0.68 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.60 | 10.98 | -3.38 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EMIM.L vs. FLQA.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMIM.L drawdown since its inception was -31.70%, which is greater than FLQA.L's maximum drawdown of -20.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMIM.L and FLQA.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMIM.L | FLQA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -31.70% | -20.97% | -10.73% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.95% | -15.46% | +3.51% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.56% | -19.58% | +4.02% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.99% | -19.58% | -1.41% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -26.46% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -11.95% | -15.46% | +3.51% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.67% | -4.06% | -4.61% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.76% | 4.33% | -0.57% |
Volatility
EMIM.L vs. FLQA.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (EMIM.L) is 8.14%, while Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.L) has a volatility of 10.51%. This indicates that EMIM.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLQA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMIM.L | FLQA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.14% | 10.51% | -2.37% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 17.20% | 21.94% | -4.74% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.28% | 24.07% | -4.79% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.43% | 16.61% | -0.18% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.01% | 17.88% | +0.13% |
EMIM.L vs. FLQA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMIM.L has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than FLQA.L's 0.14% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
EMIM.L vs. FLQA.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither EMIM.L nor FLQA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.90, EMIM.L and FLQA.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
On fees, FLQA.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FLQA.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for EMIM.L.
EMIM.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while FLQA.L is Asia Pacific Equities. EMIM.L tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index (IMI), while FLQA.L tracks Linked FTSE Asia ex Japan ex China Index - Net Return. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for EMIM.L and 0.14% for FLQA.L.
Find the right allocation for EMIM.L and FLQA.L
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer